By Tom Allard and Ben Grubb

October 3, 2014 — 11.45pm

As an expression of the palpable mistrust that has seized the nation as it grapples with the resurgence of terrorism, there could not have been a more powerful symbol.

Just a day after it passed the first of three tranches of counter-terrorism laws that will restrict the liberties of Australians in the name of improved security, the national parliament on Thursday delivered an edict to place Muslim women wearing a face covering behind glass in the House and Senate chambers.

The proposal, which the Prime Minister says will be reviewed, is absurd as a security measure. For an incredulous Muslim community, it represented something altogether more menacing, further proof that they were being targeted.

"The burqa - it's just a non-issue," says Bilal Rauf, president of the Muslim Lawyers Network. "It's such a tiny percentage of the population. Why it's raised as a significant issue is just mystifying."

Advertisement

George Brandis defends the new reforms as response to a "dangerous new threat".Credit:Alex Ellinghausen

Rauf is one of many from a broad section of legal experts and community leaders concerned that government is rushing through fundamental curbs to our freedoms in a climate of fear, and with little scrutiny.

"There are very important objectives to balance - civil liberties and national security," he says. "It requires careful consideration. Instead they have been rushed."

"What we are talking about here is a significant invasion of privacy and restrictions of freedom of expression and freedom of movement."

This week saw the passage of legislation that will give the Australian Security intelligence Organisation new powers to conduct "special intelligence operations", where agents will be permitted to break the law and journalists, whistleblowers and others will be penalised with up to 10 years in prison if they reveal any aspect of them.

Canberra Times cartoonist David Pope gives his interpretation on the first tranche of national security laws.

Penalties have also been increased for disclosing the identity of intelligence agents from one year to 10 years.

Meanwhlie, ASIO will only need one warrant to spy on networks of computers, which some intepret to mean the entire internet.

"That could be to really any device that's connected to the internet," says Stephen Blanks of the NSW Council for Civil Liberties. "[Intelligence agencies] will access information concerning people who are not suspected of any wrongdoing."

Attorney General George Brandis has defended the reforms as a measured response to a "dangerous new threat".

He pointed out that the laws passed this week had first been proposed by Labor in 2012. The idea that there had been an unseemly rush to legislate, he added, was a "quite stunning inaccuracy".

But the draft laws were only unveiled six weeks ago, and the devil - as always - is in the detail. Loose phrasing, the use of one word and the absence of another, can have a profound impact on how laws operate.

Few would dispute giving ASIO the power to run what the police services call "controlled operations" - typically covert investigations where undercover operatives infiltrate criminal networks and may break laws in the process.

Senator Brandis said such an operation by ASIO would be "very unusual".

But, while legislation for police clearly lists the types of investigation - from terrorism to sex trafficking - that can be subject of a controlled operation, ASIO will have a much broader fiat.

The legislation says a special intelligence operation has to meet designated "special intelligence functions". Those functions, it turns out, aren't very "special" at all. Rather they are ASIO's standard and loosely-defined functions, to "obtain, correlate and evaluate intelligence relevant to security".

With the approval of the Attorney-General, almost any ASIO investigation could be deemed a special intelligence operation, giving agents immunity from prosecution from most breaches of the law, with the exception of murder, sexual assault, torture or serious damage to property.

And all such operations would be conducted under a veil of complete secrecy.

Even if a journalist - or member of the public, for that matter - was unaware of the operation's status, they could face the maximum 10 year penalty if adjudged to have "recklessly" revealed it had taken place.

The former independent national security legislation monitor Bret Walker, SC, told Fairfax Media this week that the restriction was "disturbing".

If there was a death, whether accidental or otherwise during a bungled operation, the new laws prevent anyone publicly disclosing it, he said.

"I cannot see any justification for information relating to a special intelligence operation not being able to be disclosed if ... it shows the special intelligence operation has been conducted illegally," Walker says.

While the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions will be required to take into account the "public interest" when considering whether to take a case to court, media organisations believe the protection is weak and vague, and will have a chilling effect on the reporting of the intelligence services.

"We'll still continue to get, as we have over the past recent period, good news stories that the intelligence apparatus wants to put out there," says Chris Warren, federal secretary of the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance, the union which represents journalists.

"But we won't see the critical stories that are necessary to get a proper balance of how organisations are acting in our name."

Greg Barns, of the Australian Lawyers Association, says the insertion into the laws of the fact the CDPP has to take into account the public interest was "bullshit".

"The Director of Public Prosecution in every case it prosecutes uses a public interest test," he said.

The draft bill for the second tranche of anti-terrorism laws was released last week.

The "Foreign Fighters" bill contains restrictions that have not been introduced by any other nations, most notably preventing people from travelling overseas to so-called "declared zones", likely to include Iraq, Syria and other parts of the Middle East and north Africa.

A person who travels to a declared zone will be assumed to have engaged in hostile activities in breach of Australian law unless they can prove otherwise. Aceptable reasons for travel to the areas include providing aid, acting for the government or UN, or making bonafide visits to see family members. Journalists are also exempt.

But Elaine Pearson from Human Rights Watch says there are a host of legitimate purposes - conducting business or making a religious pilgrimage, for example, that are not covered.

Bilal Rauf points out that many Shia Muslims - who are being persecuted by the militant group Islamic State that is largely behind the increased terrorist threat level - have obligations to travel to Iraq and Syria for religious reasons.

The second tranche of laws also make it an offence to advocate terrorism. Given there are already laws prohibiting the incitement of violence and hate speech carrying stiff prison sentences, there are concerns the laws are unnecessary, vague and threaten free speech.

To be prosecuted, a person - through their words - does not have to intentionally advocate a terrorist act. It is enough to "recklessly" make comments that might inspire another person will commit one.

The laws also extend for a further 10 years the regime of control and preventative detention orders that give law enforcement agencies the ability to detain people - or restrict their movements and activities - without charging them. The laws were supposed to be up for review next year and Walker recommended they should be abolished.

Interested parties had less than two weeks to present their submissions to a parliamentary committee reviewing the bills before they are debated by parliament later this month.

"It's a really significant problem," says Keiran Hardy, research associate at the University of New South Wales' Gilbert + Tobin Law Centre.

"We have just eight days to provide a submission on a 160 page bill that significantly alters our rights and freedoms."

With Labor, keen to show that there isn't a "cigarette paper" between it and the government on national security, waving through the first set of reforms with few amendments, there are concerns that parliamentary scrutiny may come second place to political expediency

Abbott has noted that the challenge of introducing terrorism laws is to enhance security while "maintaining the social fabric of an open, free and multicultural nation".

The two objectives reinforce each other. Terrorism - and the fear of terrorism - breeds mistrust and divides societies. And a riven society where communities feel persecuted ferments radicalism that, in a small minority of cases, can lead to terrorism.

Rauf says there is a need to review and strengthen security laws but feared the government's approach will end up being counter-productive, diminishing security rather than increasing it.

Loading

"The government has alienated the Muslim community, rather than bringing them on board," he says.

"These laws are misdirected. There is a real risk that they undermine the overall and important objective of safeguarding the national interest."